The point that I was trying to make was that while there are two issues
in this book the marriage of Jesus and possible offspring and the
purported descents from this marriage.

i would guess that the mainstream of this group would have a hard time
with the concept of that marriage However, that question is outside the
scope of this group.

The problem we have is in the genealogy, which we think stinks. There is
a much fuller discussion of this in the Archives.

Yes, I agree that "facts" can change. However, the authors do not do a
pursuasive job in this case. Until, the Vatican Archives is opened and
nothing is held back ( and if something germane is found!) , this is
really a moot point, with a lot of sound and fury signifying not much.

Kay Allen AG

John Lerwill wrote:
>
> At 07:11 2/3/99 -0800, "Kay ALLEN" <>wrote:
>
> >While I will not dispute the possibilities that Jesus married and had
> >children, it can be shown that the pedigrees are fabulous, because they
> >do not come even close to what is "known". There is no corroborating
> >evidences for them.
> >
> >This thread is a re-tread. May I refer you to the archives for furthur
> >discussion on this matter including reference to a discussion in a
> >journal.
> >
> >Yes, "facts" do change. But it is unlikely that that much history got
> >rewritten.
> >
> >Kay Allen AG
> >
> >
> Sorry, Kay, I'm not altogether sure what you're getting at.......surely the
> basic point of contention is the genealogical line purported in a book (re:
> Jesus' link through the Merovingians and Stewarts)? Although I've not read
> the book or article actually referred to, I have read earlier books on a
> very related subject (e.g. the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail). Although
> these are not in any way purporting to be genealogical reference books,
> they DO start with very well constructed historical premises from which
> certain (deductive) historical conclusions are drawn - including the
> genealogical lines in question. My impression is that this latest work
> seems to be an attempt at proving what has already been written - but
> purely/only from the genealogical standpoint?. Maybe the latest book is so
> out of context with the total subject matter of the earlier books that it
> may seem to be so questionable. Perhaps I am wrong.
>
> However........I'm afraid that history DOES get re-written over and
> over......when I was at school "Columbus discovered America", they said. Do
> we believe it now??.......I've even read there's evidence that some Knights
> Templar got to North America....!!!! I can go on and on ad
> nauseum.......To-day's "rubbish" can easily be tomorrow's "knowledge" - we
> may even need a different pair of spectacles to view it properly, no matter
> how unlikely the new "truth" may seem!
>
> ....in the light of that last statement perhaps we should be a little more
> circumspect before throwing possible knowledge to the dustbin, no matter
> how tempting it may be.
>
> John.